Comment

I did manage to read right through the extract reposted here, which does state that it is Chapter 4 only, and I wish to say that although the introduction of terminology from physics is rather hap-hazard, the author can clearly in my opinion be credited with setting out a view of the net as a web, a web of connections and disconnections. This viewpoint is transcribed in a kaleidoscope of language, some of it baffling, obscure and borrowed hastily. Some is however dazzling in its leaps and landings, metaphors of metaphors, an imageristic incantation of choices and their thwartings, poetry or personal, a view of the net, nets, networks as web, weave, wait, and weave again. Why talk about webs? Why NOT?

So Heisenberg cant be quoted as a feminist? And "quantum" is dubious as nomenclature?(obviously!) Plug and socket are NOT loaded terms, sexually? (nor towers, flowers, bowers, mountains or bike-racks?) Why talk about webs? Poetically? Why not?

I am in no way qualified to judge this article, particularly from only an extract, as to whether it is more noble or contains more grammes of "information" than, say, a PHD thesis on hermenuetics in Chaucer or one on "rational economic theories at BIGMAC University", however, in my opinion from what I did read, the piece is certainly stratospheres more intelligible and meaningful than much other academic literature emanating from the base of "so-called" pOMo in Fran-- and which was so effectively unmasked by Sokal.

RDFRS US:
The mission of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science is to support scientific education, critical thinking and evidence-based understanding of the natural world in the quest to overcome religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and suffering.